To our soldiers...

Thank you for your sacrifice in 2007. Thank you for fighting the evil that some refuse to name. Thank you. God bless you and your families. Hold your heads high, use your experiences in a terrible situation, to make this world a better place, to make yourselves better individuals.

Peace to you, in 2008.

A writer's diary

A writer’s diary Part I


Let's walk for a while. Here. In pretend land.

I think I've always been a writer, though I didn't know it, until very late--perhaps too late. As a boy, I was a very good reader, and in the area that I lived in, there were only a small number of other children to play with. This, combined with a relatively unhappy childhood, caused me to dream wakened dreams, to form characters out of nothing, to idealize heroes of ancient myths. I loved comic books too. In class, I would day dream, and when I read books, I would become so entranced as to lose mental contact with my surroundings. Back in the third grade one day, I was reading the book, Baked Beans for Breakfast. Even now, I remember the tattered cover. As I read, my feet kept wandering into the aisle, and my body, turning in my seat, sideways. My teacher told me several times to keep my feet clear of the aisle and to sit straight at my desk, however, my mind lost contact with my appendages, and after several warnings, I was sent to stand in the hallway. When Darth Vader's protoge' (The school principle) made his routine patrol of the school, he found me standing outside the classroom door. I told him the reason for my excommunication, and I could see a look of surprise on his face. He told me with an uncharacteristically weak voice to return to my chair and keep my feet under my desk. I think his message did the trick. My feet are under my desk right now, but I do sometimes lean my chair back on two legs. Oh well.

My reading continued all through high school and college. One time in college, I overheard two of my professors talking about me. It's always fun to be a fly on the wall, so I listened to the whole thing. My speech class teacher was telling my creative writing teacher that my speeches were very good and original, and the creative writing teacher replied back that my writings were the same. Looking back, I wish they'd come to me personally and spurred me on a little more, but it's not their fault. They were extremely busy, I know.

After graduation, I went to work for the US Border Patrol in Arizona, but returned to Maine after only a year, for family reasons. Then, I gained a job with the Bangor Police Department. It was there that I learned more about myself, other people, and the world, than at any other time in my life. I owe a debt of gratitude to ex-Chief Donald Winslow for giving me the opportunity to wear the badge, to serve with honor. People were always asking me to tell them stories about my experiences at the department, and the more I told them, the more they wanted to hear. They said I told the stories well, with an animation. Most of my friends were disappointed when I left the department because they wouldn't get to hear my stories anymore! One more thing that bears relevence here: When I wrote my police reports, I remember a strange feeling would come over me, like the act of envisioning the circumstances, combined with the movements of typing or penning, sparked up a portion of my brain that lay dormant under normal circumstances. Before I would start the report, I would feel a sense of dread, but once I began, I seemed pulled along. It's the same now. Of course in my reports, I left out fiction!

So that's the road to here. One novel finished--maybe to never see publication, but a learning experience nontheless. Steven King had four of em in a trunk; they went unpublished until he finally wrote Carrie.

In my next installment, I'll talk about the writer's trance.

Benazir Bhutto--You won't hear the truth in the following days

Yesterday, as far as information currently available shows, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, most likely by Al-Qaeda operatives or one of Al-Qaeda'a branches. The act of assassinating potential or current heads of state is considered so aborrent to the Western mind, that we do not even consider it as a way to avoid war, which costs thousands of innocent lives.

But Bhutto was not the answer for Pakistan. Her history is stained with corruption and greed. It is quite obvious that she was not driven by a love of her people, but a love of power and money.

The images of a woman running for public office in a Muslim country had a narcotic effect on us. The pictures of Musharraf, in his military uniform, were instinctively repulsive. But we had it backwards, because we assumed the context was the same as our own. Many in the know sources state that the Pakistani military is the LEAST corrupt organization in the country.

In the 90's, while Bhutto was Pakistan's Prime Minister, she and her husband were exiled from Pakistan after they were accused of diverting funds from the Pakistani Air Force, to overseas business interests. Musharraf allowed her to enter the country again.

In the end, Bhutto will become a martyr. And once again, the extremists have miscalculated and alienated the people that all along they have claimed to represent. The extremist's blood lust is their downfall, just as in Iraq.

Christ--The Peacegiver of Christmas

I am a testimony personified, regarding the redemptive power of Christianity. Call it mystical, call it psychological, call it mularky--I'm here to say, that Christianity is real, and in the my opinion the only true religion. This is not to say that other religions do not have good and true things to say--but they cannot make me right with God.

There is the Me, that I was before I was a Christian, and there is the Me after, though the Me after still evolves. I was, before, a liar, thief, miscreant, a disorganized and incorrigible child. The day after my conversion, I remember sitting in English class, taking a spelling test in High School. I had never felt as I felt then, never experienced that kind of peace--never before or since I suppose.

There have been ups and downs. But unlike any artificial remedy and religion created in the minds of men-- my belief and hope rests in this and this alone: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasing life." John 3:16. That's all I have folks. I don't have my righteousness; I've probably broken virually every commandment in one fashion or another. Murder? Yes. Jesus stated that whoever calls his brother a fool commits murder with his mouth.

Non-believers should read the bible and they should remember context. How much of it is merely meant to point out our weakness and our need for Christ. How the peak of the bible story is the death of Christ and his ressurection-- a crescendo that shows us our faults--and then points to a saviour, one who will take our faults and make us what we need to be.

Christianity--despite the falsehoods believed by those who hate it--is not about YOU. It does not say that you must be better, or be thrown to perdition. It states that you CANNOT be good enough for God, but here, right here, "...as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life. And: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

So, it's Christmas. I want you to remember the words of God's angel, spoken to Mary and Joseph, with Jesus sleeping in a stable manger somewhere in Bethlehem. The words were not: "From now on, all people will have more rules to follow, more commandments and laws to keep them from judgement!" No, the words were these: "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be unto all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord...Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Luke 2:10-11.

KGB--Mindkiller

The Russian KGB was the most effective intelligence agency ever employed by any government in human history. In Soviet society, the KGB's tendrils reached into every aspect of Russian life. Commerce, media, schools. And the insidious power of the KBG reached far beyond the borders of Mother Russia. It crossed the ocean and grasped the hearts and minds of many elites in the 1950s, right here in America. It took advantage of Truman's one weakness: His refusal to confront the Red Threat. Truman denied it existed within our borders.

Joseph McCarthy was right. Most of the people that he accused of having communist ties were later found to be Red Sympathyzers. But so complete was the KGB's monstrous propoganda machine, that they made McCarthy into a pariah. Some would say that McCarthy was too ruthless, but he saw problems everyone else missed or willfully ignored. And his ruthlessess pales when juxtaposed with Russian intelligence agancies.

I do not believe, as some do, that the Soviets intentionally deconstructed their empire so that they could sneak up on the West at a later date. I believe that they knew that they were indeed defeated, and decided to lay low, recoup their powers, and take advantage of the inevitable future resentment of American power. They know history better than we do. They understand that cultures clash, and that superpowers intervene more often in world events than other countries do. So they waited, and smiled, and bowed, all the while concealed a dagger. That dagger is Putin and his ilk; Children of Russian intelligence, nationalists, idealogues.

We will be dealing with Russia for decades. What is their next move in their power play? Who knows. They are notoriously patient and have cultivated an ability to think outside the box that outstrips our own. At least as far as the military intelligence issue goes.

Just remember, when you hear the leftists speaking today, the children of the 60s, remember that they are unknowing acolytes of Trotsky. They were converted to the faith in the restless expanses of University, and Hillary Clinton leads their charge.

Science as Dogma

We're going backwards. The scientific community no longer listens to outside views. It is a closed system, and closed systems are doomed--incestuous and doomed.

Science is now the Anti-God. It is now a monolithic structure, moving as a Juggernaut to destroy the last vestiges of the metaphysical. Darwinists do not seek truth. They seek to disprove God.

We have seen the same type of activity in the global warming community. Attempts to shut out dissenters. The dissenters are there, but they don't have microphones in their hands for the most part.

Darwinism is peppered with holes. What scientists cannot explain, they avoid. If there's a problem with the theory, they don't attack the problem--they avoid it.

Galileo was a dissenter. Science today is the Catholic Church of yesteryear. It has a dogma to spread. There is not enough room here to talk about all evolution's myriad problems. But let me say that some of them are so simple that even in high school they seemed evident to me. My teachers had no answers for my questions, and believe me, the questions were fundamental enough to need explanation.

Some very basic problems:

1) According to Darwinism, all life evolved from single-cell organisms. At some point a species that reproduced sexually came into existence. Where did it find a mate? How could another mate even exist, given the incredibly small chance of a creature mutating to exactly the same form as a mate? And then, what are the chances that it would find this mate? You want me to believe? Explain.

2) Human Population. The current human population growth is around 2% annually. Darwinists state that we've been here in a form that closely resembles out current state for about 2 million years. Let's be very kind to the scientists and reduce the population increase to one fourth what is today, to account for catastrophic die-offs, and then lets say we've only been around for one million years. So, (2x.07)to the millionth power. The number is something around 10 to the 2185 power (Human population). Impossible, even accounting for numerous die-offs. That number is larger than the number of electrons in the universe. Also, it took us 2 million years to make a light bulb?

3) The layman thinks that fossils secure a strong evidence in favor of evolution. Actually, they provide the strongest evidence against it. For one thing, there's a thing called the Cambrian Explosion, which Darwin himself stated was the best argument against his theory. In the Cambrian explosion, we find everything from the simplest life forms to fully developed life forms, all inhabiting the same rock strata, with no transitional forms. And every fossil out there lacks transitional forms. There are huge gaps in the fossil record for every species--not just man.

You choose--Time delivers

I wrote this story today. It's short but says something. I think.



"I support a woman's right to choose. It's as simple as that. It's her body." Linda repeated the statement as mantra, just as she'd heard it said to her so many times by her classmates at Stanford.

"But it's a baby, or it could be," said Neil. He sipped his coffee and leaned back in his chair. He smashed down a rising anger within.

"It's the mother's body," she repeated.

That evening, Linda went to bed with the normal and human expectation of waking the next morning. She had no terminal disease of which she was aware.

But aliens from the planet Halmatrus decided that they wanted to experiment with human ethical reasoning. How far could the Halmatrusians stretch the ethos of any given human being? Linda happened to be one of the subjects chosen for the alien's scientific experiment which consisted of this: A person was chosen who held strong opinions on a given subject. The human was then transported back in time, and placed in a situation that challenged the person's ability to remain faithful to his or her professed beliefs.

"You will be sent back in time, Linda Higgins," the chief scientist explained to her. "and there, you will make some very important choices that could change the future."

Linda thought that this was a grand opportunity. How many people get the chance to change the future? She had several things in mind. Several ways in which she could make the time to come much better than it had turned out in the future.

One day, in the past, Linda found a young woman, about the same age as Linda herself, crying at a bus stop. It took Linda several minutes to calm the lady down.

"What's wrong? Can I help?" Linda loved to feel as though she were helping those who couldn't help themselves.

"I just found out I'm pregnant," said the young woman. "I can't bring up a baby alone. My parents will disown me."

"There are options you know." Linda reassuringly ran her hand over the crying woman's hair. "There's a family planning clinic down the street. Have you considered it?"

"I couldn't." The woman looked up at Linda, searching for Linda's argument. It was then that Linda delivered the most beautiful, succinct speech on a woman's right to choose if she gave birth or not. The speech was soft, yet strong; she gave all of the reasons that a woman should only have babies that they felt were fated for a good life. "This is a bad world, a tough world," Linda said. "why bring a life to it that has less than it will need to thrive?"

When Linda was done talking, the woman felt better. She wiped the tears from her cheeks. Only a rose colored glow gave evidence that she had been crying. She was convinced and relieved. The woman knew, now and thanks to Linda, that she would not have to live with the burden of an unwanted baby.

Two weeks later, the woman scheduled an appointment with a doctor at the family planning clinic. And two weeks after that, she went in to have a procedure done. A procedure that guaranteed that the fetus growing in her womb would not grow too large and become what we call a baby, and that baby would not have to deal with the pains of life. That was how the woman made herself feel better about what she'd done. She'd spared the child unnecessary pain.

Guilt may have taken root in the woman if she had known the effects of her actions. Just as the doctor completed the procedure, Linda blinked from existence. She simply disappeared, leaving a void in space for a nano second. The void closed with a crack, leaving no evidence that Linda had ever existed.

If only Linda would have asked the young woman her last name. If only. She may have recognized the name as her mother's maiden name. And then, Linda may have considered the metaphysical aspects of her actions, that she had endorsed her own wiping from history.

Back on the planet Halmatrus, the scientists there were awed by humanity's ability to stand up for what it believed in.

Nothing New Under The Sun

Everything is worse today than it was yesterday. And tomorrow will be even worse than today. That's what the papers and CNN would have us believe. And it's all different too. The things they're reporting have never happened before, it's never been like this you know.

Only, it has.

It's all the same crap, rehashed to make people look smart.

I'm reading Breakfast of Champions, written by Kurt Vonnegut back in 1973. Vonnegut was, while living, a champion of the left. I believe he may have had more influence on the current way of thinking amongst leftists than anyone. That is, complain about everything, make people believe America is terrible, and yet take advantage of all that America offers. Do it because you like to bitch. Do it because you're smart. But just don't look closely at the rest of the world, because you'll be forced to admit that there, it's even worse.

Breakfast of Champions was written in 1973. In it, Vonnegut spouts all the same stuff that liberals talk about today. We've poisoned our planet. Columbus was evil. Americans drop bombs on other countries simply because they don't follow our rules etc. He conveniently ignores all the good.

But I like Vonnegut's writing. He's clever. He was also extremely depressed, even suicidal. His style has a sighing quality to it, one that says that life sucks and we all know it.

But geez, can't liberals come up with something new?

To Whom are we thankful?

At the promptings of Rush Limbaugh, I decided to read the first Thanksgiving Proclamation, issued by George Washington.

The first thing that struck me is how succeptible I am to deconstructionist historians, primarily composed of leftist atheists. Even I had come to believe at a certain level that most of our founding fathers were deists, who avoided writing of God. In particular I have heard stated that George Washington was not a Christian.

I'll let you decide what George Washington's beliefs were. Read his speech, and imagine a curremt president giving it--imagine the screams of impending theocracy echoing from moon-bat land.

Here it is:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and
humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of
Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the
people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be
observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors
of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to
establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of
November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service
of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the
good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in
rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and
protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a
nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable
interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late
war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have
since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been
enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and
happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for
the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means
we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for
all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon
us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to
pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in
public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties
properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to
all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and
constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to
protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show
kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and
concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and
virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to
grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone
knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d dy of October, A.D.
1789.

G. Washington

That's eleven references to God in some form. Just because American's have the freedom to choose any religion, does not mean we are not a Christian nation.

Find another tree to bark up, lefties.

Why I wish Iraq had not happened

We should not have invaded Iraq.

Not because Saddam Hussein didn't deserve the gallows, not because Bush lied, not because war is bad. Because it allowed the far left to gain the foothold they needed. They managed to stage a coup on reality, bolstered by their seemingly unbreakable hold on the major portals of information: Schools, newspapers and television. Now for years to come, I'll be seeing Troops Out of Iraq bumper stickers, right next to pealing and faded Kerry/Edwards bumber stickers. I'm forced to listen to college undergrads discuss MTV Realworld or Nip Tuck in the same breath as geo-political events. Kids who've never had to fight for a damned thing in their lives.

I'll have to hear how the fundies usurped the constitution, how this is the worst epoch of American existance--how it's all so bad, bad, bad.

And of course, when (not if) Islamic Fundamentalists hit us again, I'll have to hear how it's all because we invaded Iraq. After all, history started with the birth of the people now in their sophmore seasons of university, right? All bets by the media are hedged on the fact that people don't read history, don't know about people like England's Chamberlain and what the British media did to soften Hitler's rhetoric--they published censored versions of Mein Kampf so that the British people wouldn't stand behind war. The left wished to avoid war at all costs: 6 million jews inhaling Zyklon B would not have been enough for the liberals of that time to fight. I rest assured that the death of my children at the hands of fanatics will not be enough for the liberals of this time to fight either.

Eventually and probably, people will tire of being bombed, gassed and flown into buildings. They may realize this is not Shangri-La. I suspect though, that many more will have to experience those horrors before the West stops procrastinating and denying what our problem really is.

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Today I began reading Jared Diamond's book, Guns,Germs, and Steel--The Fates of Human Societies. The book won the Pulitzer prize and in it, Diamond attempts to explain why he believes that cultures developed the way they did. For instance, why weren't the Europeans conquered by North American Indians and why were the Incans, when discovered by Pizarro, employing stone tools used ten thousand years prior in Europe? These questions are largely avoided by modern science because of the terrible truths that may be uncovered should we delve too deep.

To my dismay, not more than say--ten pages into a prologue--Diamond is already displaying the usual pathologies of the political correct. He immediately erects a bulwark against accusations of racism by indicating that he does not, as many 19th century scholars did, think that the differences are because of innate intellectual features among the different races and he proves that he's not a racist by doing what all unconscious followers of that great deceiver--Jean-Jacques Rousseau--always do: They become racists. He states implicitly that not only does he believe Westerners are not smarter than the indigenous populace of New Guinea,(where Diamond worked studying bird) but that the dark-skinned people of New Guinea are smarter than Westerners. To prove this, he takes up some two and a half pages, using the most inane anecdotal evidence one could imagine, (that is after he says there are genetic reasons for them to be smarter)such as Western children watching too much television and the children of New Guinea never watching it. He connects this to intelligence saying that studies prove that lack of stimulation at young ages reduces potential mental faculties. So his circular reasoning--with no scientific backing, only his general observations, which he admits--produces the conclusion that should a race be less intelligent so as to fail to produce a technology that MAY stunt intelligence, it is actually displaying higher intellect!

We have seen the results of Nobel Prize winning scientists who state that whites have superior IQs when compared to blacks. And if a scientist were to state that he is not racist--in the modern sense of the word--but continue to hold to racial superiority, he would be laughed out of his profession. Diamond displays racism. He says without blinking(because he knows where the outrage over race always comes from) that blacks are smarter than whites.

So I've already got an idea as to why this book received the Pulitzer Prize. It says exactly what the Highbrow Intelligentsia of the Pulitzer board want to hear--the Whiteman is bad and dumb, except of course for them.

Limits of the State

When we look at the various forms of government implemented throughout history in various nations, we can come to but one conclusion: The type of government and economic scaffolding implemented, does not always determine the fate of a nation.

The most important factor in determining a nation's success or failure is culture. What does a nation's society value? How does it define right and wrong?

We have seen what happened in Russia and to some extent, other Eastern European countries when capatilism was implemented in a somewhat artificial and blanketed manner. Russia never fully removed itself from its old values. Corruption was and is accepted as the way things are done. As a collective people, Russians never arrived at the positions American's found themselves in 1776:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

These are the musings of aliens to the Russian. Therefore there can be no public will to stand behind a constitution similar to ours. Public will is the only thing that gives legs to any action of government.

As much as I believe that Adam Smith came as close as a human could to codifying a way to human happiness, I also know that without the proper cultural foundation, no color of State rule can lead to freedom and it's fruits.

Thank you Peggy

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first." ~ Margaret Thatcher

Winning in Iraq; losing the presidency

I posted a poll on my blog today. You'll find it in the upper-right corner. It asks if an American victory and withdrawal of troops from Iraq by 2008 damages the chances of a Democrat being elected president. Some may want me to define victory, but before I do, I want to remind you that there is a portion of the moonbats who would never recognise victory in any form. My definition would go like this: The present government maintains a stable democracy where rule of law is held in high esteem. Through law, insurgents, attempted coups and small scale invasions from Iran and Syria are promptly and strongly dealt with. It should also be noted that I don't think we'll be out of Iraq in 2008.

Iraq will probably, at least in my life, never be a pristine example of a democracy. Perhaps the best we can hope for is something like Pakistan. But that's a huge improvement on what was there six years ago.

Of course, most of the Dems voted to go to war. But then they discovered what a great weapon the war is against the Republican party. And they fully invested all of their rhetoric into defeat--because after the difficulties of dealing with the insurgency, they were sure we had lost. But we hadn't. Al-Qaeda, and you don't hear this much in the mainstream media, has been crushed. The worst defeat possible has befallen them: Rejection by the Muslim community. No longer is Al-Qaeda protected by frightened Muslims. These people want to live in peace, and they know that Al-Qaeda brings only death.

Secularized, homogenized and moonbaterized

Children in King Middle School in Portland Maine will be popping contraceptive pills if officials at the Portland School Committee have their way. The committee's proposal will give students in grades 6-8 access to a full spectrum of contraceptives, including a morning after pill. Condoms are already available.

Our schools have failed us--because we gave them to government. Instead of representing our core beliefs, the schools now shape our beliefs. We took out God, we told the children the evils of Christopher Columbus and about bad white men like George Washington. Oh, and don't forget what Hernan Cortez did to the wondrous Aztec Empire--yes the same Aztecs that ate the hearts of their human-sacrifice victims. Everything that Little Johnny learned was good and proper back in 1950 has been turned upside down. It is clear what happens when we give any portion of our well-being to the state

Humans are unhappy on the inside. We fall off the proverbial horse, get back up to ride again, and fall off the other side. Humanity is like a person who rearranges the furniture once a week. If only they can get the set-up just right, they'll feel better. But we can't get the outside just right. Only the inside matters in the end.

It's ironic that the Left, which has trivialized sex, wants to talk about it all the time, everywhere and to everyone. Let's face it--sex is a powerful force. It is not a toy. It can destroy a person, both physically and psychologically. Like all powerful forces--it can be used for good or bad. To hand our children such a weapon in hopes that it will be properly used is like handing Johnny a gun and telling him where the safety is. Sex is more powerful than either the religious or secular care to admit. The religious fear its power because they are constantly wrestling with temptation. The secularists fear the power of sex because should they admit sex's true importance, they would have to treat it with respect. It has even been said that the power of sex is such, that a person's nature can be gleaned merely from observing the type of person he or she sleeps with.

Until we remember sex's power, and respect it, our children will continue to become courser creatures; and more and more 13 year old girls will make the F-Bomb part of their lexicon.

Collectivism and the destruction of the ego

Among the many motives that pulled humanity from its caves and jungles and into the enlightened era, there is one that stands prime: Human ego.

Ego and the sense of accomplishment, the destruction of one's obstacles and the overcoming of difficult situations. This is what causes, indeed forces, humanity to improve. Without these challenges, the individual mind stagnates, becomes lazy and flacid. I've seen it in my own life and it's evident in the portions of America that have been granted funding simply for having a certain skin color or possessing certain genes. These people have been told for decades that they are victims, and victims need help. The so-called saviors of these people are victims themselves: Of linear thinking.

The black community has gone backwards because they fell prey to the culture of victimhood that is so fashionable on the left. The crime rate amongst blacks is way up since the 1960s. A portion of my heritage is American Indian, and I can assure you that there are massive problems on the Indian Reservations in my homestate of Maine. All of these problems are attributable to collectivism. The natives that live on the tribal land are given free housing and per capita checks every year from the governement. They are given free college tuition too. But that which cost us nothing has little value to us. I know this myself as I've always had a problem in keeping track of my sunglasses. Then I payed $100 for a pair of Oakleys and kept them for longer than all my other pairs combined.

It is really a tragedy that Americans have not learned the attrocities commited on the human spirit by collectivism. First, it smashes competition. Competition is a driving force for good. In sports, baseball for instance, when the season homerun record was 12, everyone strove for 13. But when it was 61, the target number was 62. To remove competition is to destroy part of our humaness. Humans can overcome great barriers, but not when they are taken care of. Only when they can take care of themselves can we be great. Will our children drink milk forever? Will they always have training wheels?

Also on collectivism's hit-list is individuality. We all have strengths and weaknesses. Our mission here on Earth is to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Socialists tell us that for the most part we are all so bad that only a system can help society to reach its potential. But I say that only the individual can take us where we need to be. One person at a time must come to the conclusion that they themselves, without government, can make a difference.

If we want minorities to become successful, if we truly desire that the weak be made strong, we must challenge them. They must act, not with cliche'd picket signs, but by removing the brand of victimhood that is now burned into their souls by the left's pundits. The challenge does not guarantee that everyone will succeed, however it does give everyone a chance. The only chance that collectivism has been shown to grant is universal misery.

Did you know...

That there have been 16,791 people to date killed by Islamic terrorist in Iraq since the invasion? 225 people have died from collateral damage from American operations(while Americans were fighting Islamic terrorists).

It's funny when people say that the Iraq war is being used as a recruiting tool by extremists. Yes, it is. And before the war they used other recruiting tools and will use still more when the war is done.

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth...until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."~ The Koran.

Just one question...

What the heck does global warming have to do with world peace? Wow. Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is like me receiving the Pulitzer Prize for designing a new type of toilet paper. Books are made of paper after all.

Inconvenient Truth is untrue according to British Court

A British court ruled that Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", is factually inaccurate and if shown to school children, must be balanced with the views more commonly held by the scientific community. It is sad that this movie gained so much attention, and only because Gore's name was involved.

The court sited eleven claims made in the film that have either been proven to be incorrect or controversial. Of particular note is the assertion that the icepack of Mt. Kilimanjaro is retreating because of global warming, that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming and that polar bears are dying because of global warming. All of these have been shown to be false or have no scientific link to warming. In fact, the polar bear population is on the rise, and there is no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes.

This is one area in which clearer heads have won out. The issue of global warming is cooling. Strangely enough, a search of AP news articles in the last ten days shows no articles produced on this. There was an article in Reuters London though. Those journalists just KNOW we're all going to boil off the earth--and they just can't let you think any different.

Face it

Face it America. You're not tired of our soldiers dying; you're tired of the news telling you the same stories everyday. But the media has slowed on its Iraq reporting. Why? Because we've won. Yep. I'm declaring a US victory. And now the war is no longer a Democrat talking point. A win in Iraq simply doesn't help them gain power--only bad news does. Car bombings could occur from now until the cows come home--but we've still won. Our soldiers are the best in the world, folks. All of the mall shopping in the world, carried on by our nation's people, won't change the fact that our military is great. We shop; our soldiers fight. We complain; our soldiers win. We are pundits; our soldiers are champions. This battle has been carried on long enough, I admit. But we won, because will is the prime factor in all of humanity's struggle to relieve itself of the pain inflicted by tyrants--and the will of our volunteers far outstrips that of the undergrads discussing International Relations at Starbucks.

Now I ask a difficult thing of the Democrats. Admit that you have been defeated by an American victory. Admit that the world is better without Saddam, and that within a few years, all of the hyperbolic rhetoric will be forgotten--not by Islamic extremists; they can never be sated by anything but death--but by the squawkers within our own borders; by the European countries who are changing their tone before our eyes, each of them I'm sure, somewhat embarrassed for being bullied by Neo-Facsist Russia. So, secure in your defeat and secure in the fact that your country still loves you despite your years of slandering and calling its leader Hitler, find something real in your life to hold on to. It can't be God, I know. Al Gore maybe? He's up for the Nobel Prize, even with his error-ridden film.

As I've admitted defeat in the arena of American culture, so should the left admit defeat in Iraq.

The police, force and the media

On Glenn Beck's radio show this morning, he was speaking about the Florida police officer who hit the 15 yr old girl in the face after she bit him. Yup--that's what happens when you bite people.

The longer I worked at the job of police officer (That's all it is to me--a job. Not a calling or something sacred) the more I realized that I did not possess the same rights as the average citizen. For the most part I had far less. Each year, I noticed that officers were under more scrutiny. The stress from this alone was enough for many to wish that they had followed other career paths. The second guessing was incessant. Most of the officers, including myself, found that it was better to do nothing. Avoiding trouble was rewarded in that there were no complaints filed, no lawyers knocking on the door with a civil-suit and no injuries from fighting with out-of-control drunks.

Is this what you want from your police force? That's what America is getting, because, as with a nation's government, America gets the police it deserves. America wanted me to drive around in a cruiser with a cup of coffee looking really serious, wearing body armor, carrying a gun. I wore the garb of a warrior, but needed the politeness of a Wal Mart greeter. I saw officers spit on, have bones broken, stabbed, exposed to deadly diseases--but in almost 8 years of work, rarely saw a criminal go to the hospital because of injuries incurred while battling police. They kicked the windows out of our cruisers, screamed the most vile words of abuse at us and we took it like professionals in the vast majority of instances.

More and more, crime IS paying. When a nation fails to protect its police, it is undermining the very foundation of all democracies--rule of law. And that's what is occuring at multiple levels; a complete disrespect for the law and its arm--the police.

Our children should be taught in high school civics their "rights", so police won't have to hear "I know my rights." No, you don't son, you really don't.

In the last few weeks, we have the taser incident at Florida University, and we have
the incident of the officer slapping the 15 yr. old. In both cases the police are presented as abusive. But it just isn't so. Here's something that needs to be taught in civics: The police use of force continuum. Its goes like this:

1) Police Presence. Officer simply shows up at the scene. Hopefully people stop acting like idiots.

2) Verbal Commands. Officer tells the drunk guy at the bar to leave and reminds him to take a cab.

3) Hands-On. The police officer can grab a person to enforce a lawful order, such as, "Sir, leave the bar now."

4) Non-Lethal striking and weapons. Police CAN hit. If someone struggles, the officer can strike with baton, he can kick to large muscle groups, he can pepper-spray or taser. So now you know that Taser Boy got what was coming. The officers asked him to leave. He didn't. They grabbed him by the arms. He struggled and broke loose. They wrestled him to the ground where he continued to struggle. He rode the lightning. That's the way it works. Sorry

5) Lethal force. The police can shoot anyone posing the threat of serious bodily injury or death. Many, many people that the police could legally shoot, are subdued by other means.

PHONY SOLDIERS!!!

I'm hoping my words will bring me as much fame as they have Rush Limbaugh. Yes that's right. Soldiers, such as Jesse Macbeth aka~Jesse Adam Al-Zaid~ who claim to have served, but did not are PHONY SOLDIERS. This is exactly what Limbaugh was saying and it's exactly what I'm saying. These PHONY SOLDIERS are the ones that the weird left props up as heroes for supporting the "America is Bad--Bad I say!" ideology.

Look--anyone who knows me knows that I would myself denounce Limbaugh for calling a soldier "phony" for disagreeing with the war. I may disagree with this soldier, for there are far more soldiers that agree that our efforts have been worth our blood, but I would respect him for his service. If you fought, you are not phony. But Limbaugh simply did not say that veteran dissenters are phony. This whole thing is simply chilling to me. It alarms me to the type of world we now live in. Some 40 senators signing a letter to Clear Channel calling for his punishment? And he didn't even say what they are alleging! And the spin placed by media outlets is surreal. They begin their stories with something like: "Senators are denouncing radio personality Rush Limbaugh for his statements that soldiers who disagree with the Iraq War are phony." Again--it is plain that he didn't say that.

George Orwell's 1984 was wrong. It isn't the government that is the big problem. It's all of the other entities that form our thoughts and control what we believe. The left has infiltrated and now controls our universities, the media and to some extant, the scientific community. The guns of all of these institutions have been brought to bear on what has been held sacred on this country since its independence. Science is the blade that severed our faith. Through the universities and the media, the ideology of leftists is spread upon the masses. Everyday is an assault upon our conscious of what it means to be an American. I remember being taught in grade school, and seeing for myself that America is the best place in the world to be. No such thing reaches our children's ears now.

Truly, I wonder if the battle is lost. I'll go down with this ship, my friends. I can only be what I am and what I believe. And I believe in God and Country. But where is God? He's dead--and we've killed him.

Political Realism

As you can probably tell from reading my posts, the proper name for my political perspective could be termed Political Realism.

This is how I see things:

1) There is no global power that regulates the authority of individual states. All states to some degree are different from one to another, holding to ideals that others do not. The failures of entities such as The League of Nations and The United Nations clearly displays this fact. It cannot be expected that multiple nations will agree on anything, and to allow the worst of the lot to dictate what the most competent nations are allowed to do is a recipe for disaster.

2) The number one interest of any state is its own national security. To expect more than that is foolish. A state is the collective conscious of its people, and all peoples are driven by the survival instinct, above all else.

3) Only through superior military and economic power can a nation further its chances of survival. Nations do not survive because of the goodwill of others. Goodwill is a side-effect of building a strong economic base, fostered by a liberal free market. Only under these conditions is goodwill possible.

4) All nations at all times are struggling to reach the top of the international food chain. Weaker nations, either in military terms or economic terms are devoured by the stronger nations. Jealousy, strife and war are unavoidable evils in a world such as this. This is not to say that a nation must always attempt to dominate another. I only say that the natural order of things causes one nation to fall behind another, and just as an animal becomes predatory when hungry or lashes out when cornered, said nation will find it necessary to commit to either violence or improve its economic function in order to maintain relevance. Otherwise revolution or annexation will occur.

5) A nation either decays or is destroyed in one of three ways: 1) It's economic base becomes so weak as to cause its people to starve, suffer disease or commit to revolt. 2) It's military becomes so weakened that it becomes a target for stronger enemies seeking its resources or seeking to punish it for past wrong-doings. 3) A general internal malaise occurs amongst the populace. A depression of sorts in which a nation's people lose their will to exist. This could be seen in the Roman Empire at its end and there are signs of this occurring in all of the West. The third listed here will eventually result in one of the first two occurring.

Harsh? Yes. Difficult to deny though.

The future president has a hard road

"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."~Niccolo Machiavelli

The Democratic candidates have a difficult future to face. All except Hillary, fail to see this. Hillary knows that sometimes you have to fight, but she lies to get what she desires most--power. Obama and Edwards live in a world that holds little resemblance to this reality. A world where conflict can be abated, if only we would talk and understand--and give up.

In everyday life, victory never comes. There is not a day that we wake up and say: "I've won!" No, life is maintenance. Life requires endurance. Those who endure can appear to have triumphed, yet even they must face each day with determination lest what they have accomplished suddenly vanish.

And so it is in international relations throughout the lifespan of a nation. We may win a battle, our economy may thrive for a time, but that will never relieve us of the responsibility to carry on. There is little time to relax, unless one doesn't mind seeing what made his country great slip away or stolen by cultures with a stronger will.

Americans, should they again begin to study history, will see that cultures clash. We will continue to clash, to spill blood from now until this generation has passed away and then we will clash some more. There is no easy road. The Democrats will continue to lie to get votes. They will continue to tell the American people that war need never happen. That Saddam should have remained in containment. That Iran will submit to embargoes and diplomatic pressures. Only time will tell, but history shows that these actions rarely work. We are making crime pay by negotiating too much and this process is enabling more and more rogue states to hold the world as an atomic hostage, demanding huge ransoms. That's exactly what Saddam did with the Oil for Food deal, and it's exactly what Kim Jung-Il has done; demand goods and services in exchange for not making nukes. My guess is that these regimes will continue in their nuclear ambitions even after the accords are signed. This is what Saddam did and the UN refused to act.

As I said earlier, of all the Democratic candidates, only Hillary understands the place that war has. But if she is to follow in the footstep of her husband, she'll neglect and procrastinate so that the next president will have to march our troops into danger. We should know now that that president will receive as much hatred as George Bush has. He or she will be accused of being a fascist. He or she will be accused of being the worst president in history.

If the next president does the right thing he will remember the words of the Gaulic leader, Brennus. When Rome was sacked and occupied, the Romans agreed to pay a ransom of 1000 lbs of gold. As the Romans complained that the Gaulic scales were unfairly balanced, Brennus threw his sword onto the scales, announcing: "Vae Victus!" ~Woe to the Defeated! Indeed, woe to the world should America be defeated.

Awesome article

Here is a piece written by Robert Kaplan which holds closely to my views on where our national media is taking us. The media with its odd mingling of self-awarded virtue and lust for billions in cold, hard cash. Since some won't read the article, I must place a part of it here that is very important:

"The first Medal of Honor in the global war on terror was awarded posthumously to Army Sgt. First Class Paul Ray Smith of Tampa, Fla., who was killed under withering gunfire protecting his wounded comrades outside Baghdad airport in April 2003.

According to LexisNexis, by June 2005, two months after his posthumous award, his stirring story had drawn only 90 media mentions, compared with 4,677 for the supposed Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay, and 5,159 for the court-martialed Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England. While the exposure of wrongdoing by American troops is of the highest importance, it can become a tyranny of its own when taken to an extreme."

So, so true. Cut and paste this to your browswer to read the article: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010686

Culture Slaves

Americans, particularly the younger generation, is a slave of the left's holy word: Culture. In a country constructed to limit government power, to enable its people to find their way, guaranteeing in our sacred documents the right to pursue your dreams--hit or miss--we are now beholden to the private sector's power. Ambushed, caught unaware by entities who promised that they were the watchdog of government, the protectors of liberties and the criers of truth, the masses now nod their heads in sacrosanct unison to the preachings of Keith Olbermann and John Stewart. Masking their hate with sarcastic half-truths, Olbermann and Stewart and their simulacrums are leading a new revolution in news media: Satirical Journalism. Under this banner, they are able to make any allusion they wish, any statement however untrue or perverse. Behind the buckler of comedy, they are protected from libel and political backlash.

Also recruited to do the left's bidding: Actors, musician and various other pretenders, striving hard to sound important and to convince themselves that their lives are more than make-believe. And no matter the ignorance contained in their words, no matter how empty their "ideas", young people love them. And if one of their number should stand on the side of conservative values, be sure that well-trained character-assassins are close by, ready to unsheathe skeletons in closets and sling hyperbolic accusations.

Two points to illuminate:

1) Most of the actors and musicians, the Cheryl Crows of the world, are less informed then the average blogger.

2) The media gets far more stories wrong than the public is aware of.

On both counts, most people would probably agree. And yet they go on listening to the lies, inuendo and over-simplified notions. I myself did not realize how incompetent the media is until I became a police officer. As a cop, I had inside knowledge on many of the cases that the local news papers reported on. All of the men that I worked with experienced great frustration in the lack of candor and accuracy presented in various articles. And now this Rush Limbaugh thing. That cemented it with me. I heard the whole show in which he is accused of calling our military's dissenters " phony soldiers". Only he didn't say that. There was never any question in my mind about what he was saying until I heard the next day that the aforementioned character assassins were doing their work with the usual efficiency. Rush has stated repeatedly that he did not mean every soldier, but one in particular, who is part of a group of other soldiers who claim to have been in Iraq and never were. Since Rush has stated he did not mean every soldier, why is there even a story anymore? His usual enemies took their shots at him, so why should he be offended? He takes shots from them everyday. He simply didn't say what they said he said. It's maddening. I know for a fact that most of the people who are critical of Fox News and Rush haven't watched or listened to a whole block of their product. They're scared of the product. It may disrupt their belief system.

Americans must shut their televisions off. They must read history books. The life-disasters of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton must become unimportant if we are to survive as a great nation. We must learn from ancient codices--not so much from current events which are cloudy because of their nearness. Anyone not afraid of reality, anyone who knows that tough times require tough choices, should turn off the television, cancel their subscription to the New York Times, go to their local library, and check out a copy of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. In that book, you'll find why wars really begin and why the winners are the winners.

Pissing away an easy win

The Democrats had it in the bag. Six months ago, conservatives were storing up for the long winter of Democrat rule, both congressional and Whitehouse.

Then Democratic candidates made the mistake of answering specific questions. They revealed their future economic structures and ideas about troop withdrawal in Iraq. They wanted a six month time line for a pull-out. They shredded Patreaus to make themselves look smart. And the easy victory that they would have carried, sifted through Democrat fingers.

Hillary is a Socialist, plain and simple. Her codeword for socialist is Progressive. These are the same progressive thinkers that visited Stalin's regime in the 50s and decided that communal farms were the way to go. These were the useful idiots that the evil though thoroughly effective KGB recruited and planted. The same progressive thinkers it turns out that made Joseph McCarthy all too right. The Red Scare happened, not because McCarthy made it up, but because the leftists of the day made the same mistake that they make today--they coupled their thinking with that of despots.

So now Hillary has taken the New Deal and made a Newer Deal. Her proposal is one small step for a presidential candidate, and if it's implemented, will be the largest step backward for world-wide Democratic Capitalism since prior to WW I. America has become more mixed economy than true Laissez Faire capitalist state. Slowly, the government has assumed more responsibility for all facets of our life--but Hillary plans to make us a full-blown socialist state. Governmental control over the medical industry--already the most regulated industry in America--can be seen as nothing other than Marxist. Remember, the medical industry comprises 17% of the American economy.

Even given younger American's lust for a government that tucks them in at night, I think that there are enough Americans left over from the era that knew what truly made America great and different--and it sure wasn't socialism. Hillary has misjudged here. This, yoked with her unlikability, may yet be her undoing.

Had the Democrats continued to harp on Bush, ala Johnny Cochran in the OJ trial, there was no way they could lose. America hates this war; they don't understand it or the history of Iraq or the nature of fundamentalist Islam. Then came Patreaus' testimony before Congress. What to do? Here was a credible man that Congress unanimously approved of when he was appointed supreme commander in Iraq, and now he's telling us we're winning? Hillary and Barak want America to win, but they want America to win during their terms. So no Democrat at the recent debate would promise a withdrawal from Iraq before 2013! A win with Bush in office would be catastrophic to their political hopes.

Hillary now keeps pouring on the monetary promises, announcing $5000 baby-bonus checks to be doled out for every child born. Of course she announced this at the black caucus. I wonder why that is.

They had it, they really did. But it's an even race now because the Dems revealed their destructive ideologies.

It's time to leave the UN

But America won't, because for some reason that escapes me, people are infatuated with multilateralism. They just adore it. The EU, the UN, The Kyoto Protocol; it's all evidence that they can buy the world a Coke and live in perfect harmony. But it simply has never worked.

President Bush spoke at the United Nations General Assembly this week and told them something that they needed to hear. I'm paraphrasing. The Human Rights Council has failed again and again. It is comprised primarily of countries that hate Israel and the United States. The Council has failed to act on the most egregious forms of human rights violations in the world. In the most recent assembly, it enacted two resolutions against Israel but none against the most atrocious regimes on the face of the earth. That brings the total to 15 resolutions against Israel and 4 impotent resolutions against Sudan; Land of the Dead.

The Council was unable to decide if an investigator should remain in Darfur, and so postponed its decision for three more months.

Here, in a nut-shell is what happens when entities like the UN form: All states that take part in the entity's actions, like all things in life, tend toward homeostasis. And since the chaotic malcontents far outnumber the successful western cultures, the West finds itself playing down to the lowest common denominators. To allow the opinions of known human rights violators such as Russia, Cuba and Saudi Arabia is lunacy. Lunacy in the name of just getting along.

Torture

No, I'm not talking about listening to Rosie O'Donnell. I'm talking about water-boarding. Torture is bad. So is shooting someone in the head. And yet, liberals try to tell me how evil America is for water-boarding captured members of Al-Qaeda, yet they never speak of the Al-Qaeda operative whom gets shot in the head from 300 yards by a Marine sniper. Give any operative a choice between water-boarding and getting shot and see what answer you get. CIA agents must undergo water-boarding so that they have experience with its effects. Is Amnesty International crusading for the rights of CIA agents to not be subjected to torture?

It's too easy to say that America shouldn't use torture because torture is bad. I always investigate closely anything that seems too easy--axioms if you will. Many times I find them to be correct, but often I find that they are cliche'd and spoken of without true thought.

Would torture be alright if your baby girl or boy were being held hostage by Al-Qaeda, perhaps with a scheduled YouTube beheading looming? If you say that you wouldn't authorize torture in such a case, I question your morality. And I don't proclaim torture to be moral. I proclaim it to be at times necessary. Just as long-range head shots in a war are necessary but not really moral. We need to stop thinking of war as a moral issue. I'm sure this shocks many people who only want it to be that. I'll say it right here: WAR IS EVIL. It causes massive destruction, kills thousands, sometimes millions--and yet sometimes it's necessary because there are even more horrible things than war. The will to live and the right to live are beyond morality. I expect no one to willingly die, even if they deserve death. The will to live is just too strong to expect that.

Never the less, Bush signed into law a bill outlawing water-boarding. He got no credit from the lefties though--he's a fundamentalist after all and deserving of no credit for anything.

How can the media be wrong so often?

Do they do any investigation before they write and broadcast their stuff? They can't. There's no way. And apparently most of the Democrat members of the House and Senate don't either. There's a massive outburst today, both from the House floor and the leftist media (90 % of the media) about a statement that Rush Limbaugh made yesterday. Limbaugh was commenting on former lefty love-child Jesse MacBeth. MacBeth had drawn adoration from liberals and military haters because of MacBeth's statements that he had served in Iraq where he witnessed soldiers abusing Iraqis, burning bodies and hanging them from the rafters of mosques. For months, MacBeth spouted what the weirdos that have taken over the Democrat party wanted to hear: America is evil. But guess what?

MacBeth lied.

He was never in Iraq. He washed out of Army boot camp. He has been convicted and sentenced for lying under oath. Yesterday, Limbaugh commented that MacBeth is a phony. Major media outlets like MSNBC jumped on the story saying that Limbaugh labeled all soldiers that did not agree with the Iraq war as phonies. I heard the whole show yesterday and that is obviously not what he said and he would never say such a thing. John Kerry was predictably among the knuckleheads berrating Limbaugh. This is the same Kerry who in 2005 accused the American military of attrocities in Iraq. To think that this man was almost president.

This story is all over, with journalists asking politicians for their response to Limbaugh's supposed statement. The media has messed up again--but they're unaccountable. Who watches the watchmen? Drooling head-nodders, that's who.

Syrian nuclear facilities--gone.

On September 6th, the Israeli air force dispatched a wing of F-15 Strike Eagles into Syrian airspace and launched a successful attack on a nuclear tech. facility. The facility was the result of collaboration of the North Korean government and Syrian scientists.

The response from Syria to this overt act of war by Israel? Utter silence. Why? Because they're scared. Syria boasted the thickest net of anti-aircraft installments of any country in the Middle East. They have recently purchased ultra-modern technology from (surprise) Russia. The stuff didn't work. Good.

The real reason Iran's president Ahmadinejad payed a visit is because he's afraid too. Recent reports by Indian nuclear scientists who've visited Iran to help out with the nuclear program, state that they were asked repeatedly by Iranian officials and scientists if America and Israel would attack.

Why are these countries scrambling all at once to build nukes? Because we've broadcast Western disunity over enforcing international law. Saddam didn't have to abide by UN mandates, why should they observe IAEA rules? We don't have the will to win and the rogue states know it. The West is like a single-mother who's tired of controlling incorrigible Johnny, so lets him do whatever he wants.

Tim Russert hit Hillary Clinton with some good questions at the debate the other night. It's shocking really. Journalists are prone to throwing softballs to Democrats (remember- only 4% of journalists are registered Republicans). But Russert pressed her on several issues--torture, Iran's nuclear ambitions. And Hillary did what she always does: changed her story on one question and refused to answer the other. She is not a leader--never has been, never will be. She's a poll reader. It's not easy to lead. It's tough. You make enemies but you follow your conscious and do the best that you can. You listen to those who have experience and wisdom, but ultimately if you're in charge, you make the tough choices. The media has destroyed most candidates' will to be leaders because the backlash is too strong for making unpopular decisions.

Hillary can't make an unpopular statement let alone a decision. Russert asked her about torture. She stated that she opposed all forms of torture. Russert than revealed that the parameters he had read to her for the torture question were from her husband, Bill. Bill has supported torture under the right conditions. Hillary joked that she needed to talk to Bill about his conclusions. Of course Hillary has stated before in an interview published in the New York Times that she supported "ticking time-bomb torture." Then Russert asked her about Israel's right to strike Iran should Israel's security be threatened by nuclear weapons. She outright refused to answer. Israel struck Iraq in 1981, destroying a nuclear reactor. What's different now? America is different, that's what.

Citizen Soldier to Segregated Warrior

The similarities in the historical curves between the Roman Empire and America are staggering, frightening really. But so much of our mode of government and military system was taken from Rome, that perhaps I should not be surprised by the ways Roman decay so matches America's own.

One worrisome aspect that I hope future generations will take care to remedy is the current segregation of our civilian from our military. More and more, beginning with the Vietnam conflict, our nations warriors are being pushed aside from their country's populace. Our best colleges have banned ROTC programs and it's almost unheard of for a graduate from one of these schools to enter the military. This is a problem. We have so demonized our own military, that it is threatened by us, not our enemies. We treat our armies as plebeians, doing the dirty-work for unappreciative mall-shoppers. What a shame, for there has never been a great civilization without a great army. When you become great, many would plunder your treasures.

In ancient Rome, around 100 BC, Romans served in the army not for money, but because of a sense of duty to the state. Those that could afford armor and other equipment were called Class I Hoplites. So the richest did the toughest fighting. An interesting concept. The poorer farmers and such served to a lesser degree and with weaker armor and weapons. When a military conflict had come to an end, the members of the army went back to their civilian jobs.

Toward the second century AD, Rome was primarily a demilitarized society. This despite its reputation as a martial culture. Only the poorest served in the military, which was at that point a paid professional army. Very few of Rome's soldiers were born in Italy, for Rome absorbed the armies of every nation that it conquered, granting citizenship to those who fought for the great city.

During the peak of the British Empire, the finest and highest ranking officers in the Royal Army were graduates from Oxford. This is in part why British colonies did so well, and in the end improved the world. We should learn from the British model of old.

The great universities of America need to change their pompous attitudes. They need to get rid of their elitist mentality. If they want the military to change, then they should accept ROTC programs and they should be recruiting officers who are currently serving in the military so that these men can attend their schools. That is the only way these schools can bridge the ever widening gap between our fighting men and America's civilians.

For more on this, see my article--The American Republican Army.

McCain--At least he has a spine

I admit that in the past I had some serious questions about John McCain. But he's significantly improved his status with me in the last couple of months. He speaks soberly but with conviction, he fully understands the implications of the war in Iraq and the dangers posed by fundamentalist Islam. Most importantly, I truly believe that he loves America. He has not changed his rhetoric to meet the swaying tides of polls; he must know that his stance on Iraq is doing him no favors but he's been honest with himself and the citizenry and for that I must commend him. McCain has shown himself to be an honorable man while serving his country. I do not give an automatic pass to those who have served. Wesley Clark is vastly at odds with my views for instance, but I will give everyone their do for serving in the armed forces as military service no longer carries the honor that it used to among the populace.

McCain has a spine. He says what needs to be said and his words seem fresh to me when juxtaposed with those of Hillary Clinton's canned speeches. His comments about MoveOn.org are exactly what needs to be said and I see that he has no fear of not being elected as president. That's something I see amongst most of the candidates--fear of irritating someone, if only for stating the truth. But we need to hear the truth. Also, I believe that McCain can quell some of the polarity that has (though I believe unjustly) gripped our nation. The GBDS (George Bush Derangement Syndrome) that many are experiencing can be controlled with medication--and McCain may be just the apothecary to administer the dose.

Right now, John McCain has my support for the Republican nomination.

Dick Cheney in the Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal today published an article by Dick Cheney. Cheney is an excellent writer; I've read other articles written by him and am impressed.

I implore everyone to read this article. Then ask yourself: Why haven't you heard this before? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010624

Alan Greenspan

Alan Greenspan's memoir--The Age of Turbulence--hit the book shelves today. The Dems are eating it up of course, because of Greenspan's disparaging remarks about the Bush administration. Here's the quote that is sending the left to near orgasmic rapture: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil".

Explain this, Mr. Greenspan. Explain exactly what you mean. Did America have an interest, indeed, did the whole world have an interest in preventing Iraq from annexing Kuwait in 1991? And was oil part of that interest? Of course. If the oil were water, and that water was important enough so that human life or at least life's quality were severey damaged for lack of said water--would a war to secure water be the correct action? If it were you or someone you loved suffering or dying for lack of water, I dare say that you would want America to fight for it. I am not saying that either Iraq invasion was primarily about oil. It was about denying a dictator the power to damage our nation, either though his control of the massive oil reserves in Kuwait, or by stockpiling WMD. Oil is important. Oil is not evil. Every day, virtually every American uses products containing petroleum. We buy our oil at a price set by OPEC. If the middle-east did not have oil, that area of the world would come closer to resembling the more horrible places in Africa than the quasi-civilized place it is now.

And besides, Greenspan doesn't say that the war is immoral. He says that he's saddened that linking the war to oil is politically inconvenient. But in the end, I fail to see how we have any more oil than we had before. The price of oil is up. No country in the world wants to go without oil any more than it wants to go without food, water or other sources of energy. Countries have always fought over recources--because recources are life.

By the way. I agree with Greenspan's complaints that the Bush administration did not veto enough spending bills, while at the same time lowering taxes. I do agree that conservatives need to return to their roots of fiscal thrift. But this doctrine will require cutting domestic spending and there are so many currently riding the gravy-train, that I fear it's a hard-sell. Now we have Hillary talking about her socialized medecine plan( which is actually Bill's plan, as just revealed) and this is going to pull more people onto the government teet. Get ready to spend big-time under Hillary.

Party of Defeatism

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."~Winston Churchill

Some may accuse me of being a Republican partisan. I'm not; I'm an American partisan, and the things that I see the Democrats doing right now remind me why I cannot be one of them.

If MY party--The Republican party--were doing what the Democrats have done to David Petraeus, I would pack my bags and be done with them. And Republican or no, apologist for the Iraq War notwithstanding, if Patraeus' report stated that the war was a lost cause and nothing good could come from staying, I would have to acquiesce. Anyone with any honor should leave the shameful political cog that is the Let's All Lose Together Party. They don't love this country; they hate what made America what it is and they wish to change it. And they most certainly don't understand sacrifice and honor or that someone wearing a uniform can be intelligent and honest. All their pandering, and giving in has done little to bring peace. The sad thing is that I believe that they know the nature of the beast (Islamic Fundamentalism) but refuse to state the truth--because they know what people want to hear. That everything is fine and dandy in the world and only if America would hand out more soccer balls to children, the extremists will stop killing us. The Dems hedge their bets on America's distaste for studying history and lean on niceties and vagaries.

Patraeus didn't say what the leftists wanted him to, and the Party of Defeatism hates him for it. Barbera Boxer and Hillary Clinton appear as the petty ideologues they are--and the world will pay for their ignorance should America leave Iraq now. It doesn't matter what party the reader of this article is a member of. Everyone who cares should ask themselves what will happen should we leave now, after years of sacrifice and work and blood--leave just when there is light at the end of the tunnel. Iraq will implode, millions will be slaughtered and Al-Qaeda will be gifted with a training ground.

When and if the Democrats gain the Whitehouse, I expect to see a president that is holding their breath, waiting out their terms for the big money that will come to them on the speech circuit. They'll keep on negotiating with the likes of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda ala Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. They'll pray they can hold the terrorists off until the next president has to deal with them. They will have to deal with them--history tells me no different.

I'll leave you with one more quote from that greatest of statesmen, Winston Churchill (Can't you come back, just for four years, Winston?):

"Sure I am of this, that you have only to endure to conquer."

Oh Goody! Environmentally Friendly Bombs!

The Russians recently showcased a new type of bomb-- a fuel-air bomb with the equivalent explosive power of 44 metric tons of TNT. Fuel- air bombs are not new. In the movie, Outbreak, one is dropped on a camp in the African jungle in order to eradicate a deadly virus.

The great part about this, is not that humans would be instantly evaporated within the blast radius of this largest of conventional munitions. No, it's that even the hard Russians know how to please the media. Here's a quote from Alexander Rukshin, Chief of Staff for the Russian military: "At the same time, I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one."

Good--I was worried. After several thousands of people are fried by liquefied petroleum gas, at least we'll be able to build a wild-life preserve in their memory.

Book Review--Colossus

"Old Europe will have to lean on our shoulders, and to hobble along by our side, under the monkish trammels of priests and kings, as she can. What a colossus shall we be."~ Thomas Jefferson, 1816

This is the opening line to Niall Ferguson's Colossus--The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. It is not often that one comes across a book that deeply embeds itself on your consciousness, but such a book is Colossus for me.

Ferguson is a Harvard and Oxford educated history professor who writes with potent clarity. The scope of his knowledge is enormous, ranging from economics, military history and literature. The premise for this book, somewhat of a modern-day classic, is this: America is an empire in denial. It has power that it no longer wants, and in the end, its lack of will may be its undoing.

My favorite aspect of Ferguson's writing is that he backs up his statements with firm examples and numbers from history, not bumper-sticker slogans and feel-good quotes. First, the author speaks of the "Imperialism of Anti-imperialism." America's efforts to destroy despotism and totalitarian regimes. He juxtaposed this policy against the British Imperialism of the past and comes to the conclusion that British Imperialism did far more good than bad, and that America could do the same--if only it were tougher. To prove his point, he shows that of all the former British colonies, now relinquished to go about their business, only two have surpassed their per capita gross domestic product under imperialism-- others have fallen. The two that have prospered being Singapore and Australia. Even Canada has declined.

Ferguson also tackles issues concerning the war in Iraq and shows how America was damaged in similar ventures in the Philippines and Central America. America's problem: We don't stay long enough. We remove regimes, then move out. The British on the other hand, stayed for decades and in almost every case, British overseas ventures resulted in better places for human beings to live.

The EU, according to Ferguson, has in some cases been beneficial, but for the most part, its effectiveness is overrated. It has not allowed Europe to move as an entity even in stabilizing places within its own borders such as Kosovo. Also, the EU as a whole still lags behind the United States in most economic areas and shows to signs of uniting further. The UN too is all but non-existent and impotent without the United States.

Ferguson ends his book by stating that America is a less effective empire than its British for-bearer and states the following reasons:

1) Social Security and Medicare, not military spending, are primarily responsible for America's economic deficit. Both will continually drain the federal coffers at an increasingly dangerous rate. The political power of the AARP and the feel-good tactics necessary to get elected may prevent the cuts in these programs needed to avert disaster.

2) America's armies are experiencing a man-power deficit. It's standing army is the smallest it's been in a long time--a time when our overall population was much smaller and a time when our allies were more likely to be of help as opposed to their current role as speed-bumps of American power. More men in uniform are needed if we are to nation-build.

3) Lastly, and most important to Ferguson, is America's attention deficit. The United States lacks the will that Imperial Britain possessed and therefore, in it's current state, America cannot make the world a better place as it would otherwise be capable of doing.

Ferguson states that it is possible that the world could become a place of apolar power. America, while having power, refuses to use it. Europe with its, self-imposed neutering. The occasional rise of rogue-states my in fact become not-so-occasional.

Few books that I have ever read have been so informative. I will read it several times in the course of my remaining years, if only to better understand what Ferguson has to say. This book should be required reading for all studying American history and International Relations. Lastly, it should be required reading for Barak Obama.

5 out of 5 five stars.

Next week: Clandestine, by James Ellroy.

Petraeus and Congress

I'm watching the Congressional hearings today. As of this writing, Petraeus has not testified, but has sat listening to members of Congress. My blood pressure spiked when I had the dishonor of listening to Representative Lantos--DEMOCRAT-- from CALIFORNIA, ramble on. He's all for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, calling the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, "myopic."

Myopic? The true case of Myopia is any thoughts of withdrawal! Do we think Al-Qaeda will lay down its arms? Who in their right mind believes that an unstable Iraq is good for America or the world? As I watched Petraeus' reactions to some comments, in particular, when Republican Dunkan Hunter showed him an article purchased and printed in The New York Times by MoveOn.org, calling Petraeus, General Betrayus, I saw that the General was shaken. The Democrats have stated repeatedly that Petraeus's speech is written as Bush's propaganda. How repugnant, how despicable, how down-right wrong. This is a man who is putting himself in danger's way in Iraq. This is his third combat tour there. I won't listen to anyone that's pushing for cushy votes deride Patraeus; not until they themselves go where he's been. He holds more credibility then any of the politicians on either side.

How can any American not want us to win? It's their country, they live here! Regardless of any one's ideas on the efficacy of this war at the beginning--we are there and we MUST win. Since MoveOn hates war, I hope that they'll surrender as easily in the one that I'm declaring--on them. They are a cancer, a hive of lies and a bunch of moonbats hovering around the hopes of catastrophic American loss. They hate America, and I hope that they hate me, because I am their enemy--sworn.

Does anyone reading this think that MoveOn.org or the Democrats want us to win? Do they want Petraeus to tell the truth if it means American success? Anyone who is honest with themselves will know that 1) The left is against a win because Bush would appear in a good light, 2) A win and a destruction of the enemies of America would chip away at the ideology of liberals. That is: weakness is strength and America must grow weaker in order to regain its status in the world.

Where are the outcries by the Democrats for the actions of Iran and Syria in supporting the sectarian violence and American deaths? As in the past 30 years, Democrats stand firmly on the side of despots, totalitarian regimes, and nihilistic assassins.

The Barbary Pirates

One of my enduring ambitions--aside from getting America to love itself again--it to give people a historical context for today's current events. So many times, mostly because of 24 hr. news, we are led to believe that the events of the day have no precedent.

Today we'll see that the ongoing war on terror is in fact an old war and that our enemies believe they have the right to kill us and take anything of value because we are infidels. It is true. Do not believe that all people around the world think as we do, and that violence and the importance of individuals lives receives the supreme value it does in America.

In 1784, just one year after America had finished its war of independence with Britain, Barbary Pirates, (water-borne thieves operating from the coasts of North Africa under the flag of Islam), seized an American ship. Negotiations ensued and America paid the pirates $60,000 in cash and a treaty was signed with Morocco. Then, again in 1784, Barbary Pirates from Algeria captured two American ships, sold them, and forced the crews into slavery.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson was America's ambassador to France; John Adams to Britain. Both of them met with the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli to Britain. The ambassador was asked why American ships had been attacked even though there had been no provocation and no past hostilities. Jefferson writes what the ambassador told him:

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise

Such a response echoes today even; its din resonates in virtually every major country the world over--but people can't hear it even though it's repeated with startling regularity.

Have no doubt, it is commanded by Mohammed to kill or enslave the unbeliever. That is Islam's root. Not all Muslims follow Islam's commands to the letter, just as not all Christians are pious, but the commands are written that Al-Qaeda should do what it is doing--slaying infidels.

By 1793, twelve American ships had been captured; all of their crews lived as slaves for eleven years. War was never officially declared on the pirates, but military force was authorized by Congress. A point to remember, is that these pirates were terrorists of a sort. And they did not get trials nor were they held at Gitmo for CNN to film. They were killed by military engagement--that's what happened to pirates then and that's what should happen to terrorists now. They are engaging in a multi-national WAR. This is not a crime-spree; it is battle.

America learned from its dealings with the Barbary Pirates that Islam grants itself the right to do whatever it wants to unbelievers. In the late 1700s, America paid $990,000 in ransom's and bribes to Algeria alone; the national revenue was merely $7 million.

The first Barbary War was conducted between 1801 and 1804 and then another commenced in 1815. The United States Marine Corp. saw extensive action in the fighting, gaining the moniker: Leathernecks.

In ending, consider the words of US consul William Eaton in 1799 as he wrote to the Secretary of State: "Too many concessions have been made to Algiers. There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

Al-- Don't leave

Yes, soon we'll all be rotisserie chickens. In about 8 1/2 years actually. So sayeth Al.

Al would have been the smart president, right? He was the guy who did really well in school, clearing the way for his status as sentinel of the eco-system, correct?

Ummmm--not quite.

Normally I wouldn't pick on someone for their grades in school, because people change and performance has as much to do with desire as intelligence; more in my opinion. But since liberals heap praise onto Al Gore and hold him up to be an intellectual(just because he's liberal), and also because the common charge against GW Bush is that George is dumb, let's explore Al's past academic performance.

-- Dropped out of Vanderbilt twice.

--Gore only took one economics course--ever. Intro to Economics. He got a C-.

--On his college board achievement tests, Gore score a 488 out of 800 on the physics portion and 519 out of 800 in chemistry.

--While at Harvard, Gore earned a D in Natural Sciences 6; he received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.

--While at Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore received five F's.

There are more examples of Gore's lack of academic success. The primary point is--Gore has NO scientific credentials. He is a demagogue and a hack. He dribbles shallow content lifted from editorials in GQ magazine. But above all of that--he's a millionaire who invested heavily in "green" stocks before embarking on his mission to save the penguins.

Numbers Count

After the initial invasion of Iraq, the lightning-quick destruction of the Iraqi standing military and the removal of Saddam from power, the situation in Iraq seemed well in hand. From there, an insurgency arose, prompted by Al-Qaeda. There can be no question that mistakes were made--as they are always made in every war. The Battle of the Bulge, for instance, was a catastrophic intelligence failure on the part of the United States. The German army's attempted breakout and encirclement of four allied armies resulted in the deaths of 19,000 American soldier. Most of these deaths occurred over a span of three days!

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's plan for America's new military force was one whose constituents consisted of highly mobile, highly trained troops, small in number, working with as much ultra-tech as could be mustered by the likes of McDonald Douglas and Raytheon. Indeed, the wars of the future were to be "small wars" and they could take place on the filthy streets of Mogadishu or in the jungles of South America. Uprisings, coups, genocidal tyrants were what we had to worry about, not the juxtaposed might of the Soviets. To be fair to Rumsfeld, this was the thinking of almost all the generals in their war colleges as well as the authors of techno-thrillers like Tom Clancy. And indeed, Iraq's leader was a genocidal tyrant, and one that flaunted the weakness of UN resolve in unabashed fashion.

What Rumsfeld's new legions were not prepared for, was nation building. America's fighting force was meant to annihilate the enemy quickly, and to be sure, they practice their craft with the utmost efficiency. But in this thing called nation building numbers count. Laser-guided bombs shatter the resolve of the enemy for hours, perhaps days, but guerrillas quickly regain confidence when they peer from the gloom of their enclaves and see--no American troops.

Approximately 120,000 troops were mustered for the invasion of Iraq. Before the invasion, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Rumsfeld that between 250,000 and 300,000 troops would be needed to pacify the country. There were simply not enough troops to cover the places that needed covering after the initial invasion.

Some statistics warrant inspection. Despite the "bake-sales, not bombers" bumper-stickers you may have seen, America spends far less on its military than at any time in modern history. The military's force numbered 3 million at it's peak in the early seventies; now it stands at 1.4 million. And of that 1.4 million, almost 85% are stationed in the United States, not overseas.

This war is far from the unmitigated disaster that so many speak of. The casualties are remarkably low, the infrastructure of Iraq remarkably intact. It is not that Americans can't stand casualties, they just have no patience and little knowledge of history. I don't understand at all the latter. We have more access to information that any culture ever and yet, my grandfather knew more history than many high school teachers that I know of--that's a shame. We want to shatter regimes, and then leave as quickly as possible, and that's fine, as long as the job is complete. The surge is completing our task. Our failures in Iraq produced lessons hard-earned, but greatly less painful than lessons of the past. Honorable men and women have shed their blood for this just war. Remember, America--there are just wars. The ease of the fight does not constitute a war's justification. I think that before most of us pass on, we'll see a difficult war and we shall be ashamed of our current doubts.